CDC Admits That It Miscalculated The Risk Of Outdoor Covid Transmission

The New York Times is reporting that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was relying on a faulty study in declaring a 10 percent chance of the transmission of Covid-19 outdoors. After using the “miscalculation” to support outdoor mask mandates for over 300 million Americans, the CDC now says that it is more like one percent. It is astonishing that such a key and controversial component of our Covid policies was not just based on a miscalculation but never actively questioned or reexamined to discover the error.

The Times’ Leonhardt noted “There is not a single documented Covid infection anywhere in the world from casual outdoor interactions, such as walking past someone on a street or eating at a nearby table.”

The outdoor risk has been a major source of disagreement with many contesting mandatory mask rules for those walking or working or recreating outside. It turns out that, according to the Times, the 10% benchmark is based “partly on a misclassification” of virus transmission in Singapore at various construction sites. Those sites were incorrectly described as outdoor but now appear to have actually taken place in indoor settings. Singapore also classified settings that were a mix of indoors and outdoors as outdoors, including construction building sites.

The real risk is one percent or less.  Yet, cities like Chicago closed whole parks — magnifying the isolation and depression for citizens.  Various cities like New York closed playgrounds despite being outdoors and used by the lowest risk population for Covid. States closed parks and trails that could have been key areas of release for people during lock downs.  When Washington, D.C., issued its mandatory outdoor mask in July 2020, the city stressed:

Dr. Robert Redfield, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the World Health Organization, and the District of Columbia Department of Health are all agreed that wearing masks when social distancing is impossible to maintain can reduce the spread of the disease dramatically.

We spent trillions on this pandemic and the issue of masks and curtailing outside movements was continually in the news. Yet, there appears to have been little time or money spent on the basis for this key component of the mandatory policies supported by the CDC and mandated by many states.

I can understand the reliance on an article in the prestigious Journal of Infectious Diseases. I cannot understand the failure to closely examine its basis since it appears to have been the primary basis for the policy. Hundreds of millions of Americans were impacted as well as the economy. Yet, CDC is only now noting that the article appears to have been fundamentally flawed in its underlying assumptions and calculations.

207 thoughts on “CDC Admits That It Miscalculated The Risk Of Outdoor Covid Transmission”

  1. Here is a completely off topic comment; does anyone else wonder how many of the comments posted on this blog with the moniker “Anonymous” are actually Jonathan Turley?

    1. My bet is Turley never posts anonymously.

      The plurality of posting on this blog come from Anonymous the Stupid. This blog would radically improve if all of his anonymous postings were eliminated.

      1. Anonymous wrote, “My bet is Turley never posts anonymously.”

        Honestly, I’m not so sure and I certainly wouldn’t bet anything against the possibility.

        It’s very clear to me that there are multiple different commenters behind the various Anonymous monikers.

        1. If you wish to make a bet, I’m game.

          There are a number of different commenters behind the various anonymous monikers.

          I am one, but forgot to sign in above. If I am dealing with a serious commenter or I have something special to say I use S. Meyer. If I am dealing with those that don’t think straight or logically and are arrogant or nasty I respond with an SM. If I am talking to Anonymous the Stupid I generally post totally anonymously but one can generally understand from my rhetoric that it is me. My advice is to certainly discard all Anonymous the Stupid postings and mine as well when replying to him. They are all a waste of time. At best he is plain stupid, at worst he is a liar.

          Best of all respond to no anonymous postings. This blog would be a lot better without anonymous posting.

            1. Steve, we all make bets almost every moment of our lives. You just don’t want to engage in this type of bet which is good. Neither do I, but when I feel the odds are that good I will change my mind.

          1. “If…I have something special to say I use S. Meyer.”


            Yeah, you’re a ‘special’ guy, Meyer.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, I am not special. You are. You are intellectually deprived. Take this comment as an answer to the many other ones I didn’t reply to.

              1. Anonymous wrote, “Anonymous the Stupid, I am not special. You are. You are intellectually deprived.”

                I disagree.

                I don’t think that Anonymous the Stupid is not intellectually deprived at all, I think that Anonymous the Stupid is an intelligent shill. When there’s a obvious pattern of trolling associate with intelligent shilling it’s easy to think they’re a blithering moron when they’re actually using their intelligence for deplorable things like internet trolling. Truth be told, these kind of people are nothing more than an online bullies using their intelligence in reprehensible ways to incite others.

                DON’T FEED THE TROLLS

                1. In other words Anonymous; Hanlon’s razor should not be apply to people like Anonymous the Stupid when there is an obvious pattern of trolling and trolling IS malice.

                2. “I don’t think that Anonymous the Stupid is not intellectually deprived at all, I think that Anonymous the Stupid is an intelligent shill.”

                  Steve, we are on a blog. The only way to perceive the other person is based on what they write and say. If he is an “intelligent shill” then he is not intelligent enough to do his “shilling” in a better way. I am not obligated to judge his IQ. I judge his performance on the blog and on the blog he is Anonymous the Stupid. He doesn’t have to be Anonymous the Stupid. That is his choice.

                  1. S. Meyer wrote, “Steve, we are on a blog. The only way to perceive the other person is based on what they write and say. If he is an “intelligent shill” then he is not intelligent enough to do his “shilling” in a better way. I am not obligated to judge his IQ. I judge his performance on the blog and on the blog he is Anonymous the Stupid. He doesn’t have to be Anonymous the Stupid. That is his choice.”

                    The facade that Anonymous the Stupid is using is just that, a facade. It’s real clear that there’s malice and its trolling usage in this setting strongly suggest that it’s intelligence used nefariously.

                    We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

                    1. Steve, I don’t know that we disagree. I don’t point to malice because that is more inflexible a trait. There is malice everywhere when people bash ideas instead of people. My bashing of Anonymous the Stupid is really bashing his idea of Stupid. For all I know he could be my next door neighbor that I barbecue with.

                    2. Allanonymous the Stupid patrols the blog. It’s what he does.


                      After the election, he changed his name from Allan to S. Meyer, but he still posts comments as Allanonymous the Stupid.

                    3. “Allanonymous ”

                      Anonymous the Stupid, you just failed at trying to be inventive.

                      Do you think Steve is stupid like you so that you have to explain with pictures what you think of me? Normal people already now the score and if they just came to the blog they will know it soon enough. Anyone can read what I write under S. Meyer and then they can compare that to your nonsense. What I write anonymously is kept to the low level that you can understand.

  2. ” new information exists changing things”

    Nobody has posted any new evidence.
    The paper ballots were recounted by hand with many witnesses observing and it was found that the Dominion machines had counted the paper ballots accurately.

    1. Este error da las instituciones de salud y sus encargados demostraron que no son aptos ni capacitados par el puesto que desempeñan, errores que le han costado la vida a miles de personas…solo demostraron incapacidad para desempeñar un puesto donde no son los idoneos para el puesto.

    2. Anonymous the Stupid, I note that even you recognize your postings are deleted from the blog.

      You posted dated evidence from December when investigations are occurring and there is new data appearing every day. No one knows what will eventually be found.

      This is your modus operandi. When Cuomo was killing Senior in NY you were applauding Cuomo’s management of the Covid crisis even though he did most things wrong. You continued doing that until the leftists ordered a change. Suddenly from applauding Cuomo’s Emmy you went to denying what you said previously.

      Go suck on your Cuomo doll.

      1. Yes, I’m sure that people noticed that some of S. Meyer’s ‘special’ comments were deleted, along with a few of his others — by SM, or Anonymous-Allan the Stupid. Your ‘special’ name for yourself fits you to a tee.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, I am more than satisfied when our postings are deleted together. My only desire is that anonymous posts not be accepted by the blog. Then you would have to place a false name and false address to post. You wouldn’t be able to hide yourself in the bushes waiting to attack.


    Notice to my fellow commenters,
    The Quiet Man wrote on May 12, 2021 at 1:37 PM, “Well that was a ton of hot air that said nothing.”, “If your really want to get into a tit for tat about who takes this more seriously, it is one you will lose.”, “If you answer, you are not done with me and I win because you responded and if you do not answer, I get the last word and I win again.”, “Maybe you should have quit when you were ahead.”

    To my fellow readers; that’s exactly how an belligerently ignorant internet troll that’s living in a fantasy world of absurd assumptions argues when they’re rhetorically backed into a corner.

    TROLL: noun (abbreviated version of internet troll) Those that post inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

    Feed the trolls at your own risk.

    1. Some might say that you’re a troll, Steve.

      Why don’t you leave The Quiet Man alone.

          1. Anonymous wrote, “Of course I am. So is The Quiet Man.”

            So Anonymous, aren’t I welcome to my own opinion just like you, The Quiet Man and every other commenter on this blog?

            Please explain what you think is wrong with my comment Anonymous, it’s factual, it’s truthful and it’s sharing my genuine opinion. I don’t coddle to or enable internet trolls.

          2. As much as I appreciate the defense, I do not need it. He is not bothering me in the least, but I am bothering him badly.

      1. Anonymous the Stupid, you insult one person after another and then you cry at the replies.

    2. Ding! Ding! Ding!

      We have a winner!

      You’ve just gotta love it when these internet trolls confirm, with their very own words, that they’re intentional lying trolls!

      You just can’t make this kind of stuff up.

      1. Was the acknowledgement of the trolling rhetorical baiting tactic a Freudian Slip, I think not, it’s clear it was signature significance! Internet trolls are quite proud of their rhetorical baiting tactics.

        Signature significance posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant. Source

  4. Public health officials have always been driven by their desire to obtain behavior change in the general population. This leads to gross oversimplification of their message. When faced with a study that would motivate people to reduce the spread of infection, even if only by a small amount, they have absolutely no motivation to question the study.

  5. If Covid19 can’t be spread outdoors then I guess we can no longer speculate that the Wuhan outdoor market was where the epidemic started.

    1. The Wuhan “outdoor” market is not really an outdoor space. It has indoor shops. And nobody called “Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market” an outdoor market until you did.

    2. Given the location and isolation of viable viruses in medical centers and processing plants, the probable transmission mode is fecal, not insertion a la HIV/AIDS, but aerosolized expulsion and direct contact.

  6. The CDC has manipulated how they recorded deaths. They changed the method they have been using since 2003.

    “Should “COVID-19” be reported on the death certificate only with a confirmed test?COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have causedor contributed to death. Certifiers should include as much detail as possible based on their knowledge of the case, medical records, laboratory testing, etc. If the decedent had other chronic conditions such as COPD or asthma that may have also contributed, these conditions can be reported in Part II.”

    If you use the method that was used since 03, you get about 35K covid deaths.

    This over reporting plus the bogus CT counts used on PCR test that even idiot Fauci admitted too that made everyone pretty much test positive is a one two punch for hysteria.

    1. The CDC has manipulated how they recorded deaths.

      It seems odd to me that the same people that take the word of the CDC about flu deaths are now so upset with the CDC statistical analysis of covid.
      Since the beginning people have been saying covid is no worse than the flu which the CDC claims kills 30-60K in the US every year.
      How did the CDC arrive at those numbers – they guessed. The CDC has better data on covid deaths than they have flu deaths. Their guess on how many died from covid is better informed than their guess on how many died from flu. But you pick and choose what you want to believe.
      As one emergency room physician said, he doesn’t recall seeing anyone admitted to the hospital who died of flu, but has seen dozens that he is sure of that died of covid.

      1. I especially like the better informed gunshot deaths that are classified as covid19.
        Or maybe the motorcycle accidents.

      2. Why did the CDC change how it records deaths. Why not use the method they have been using since 2003? It you do, you only get about 35K

        1. Why did the CDC change how it records deaths.
          The link above is about a new ICD code introduced for COVID-19 deaths
          If you are asking why they did not have a code for cause of death from covid before last year, that’s a pretty dumb question doncha think?

          Doctors are the ones that fill out death certificates based on their professional judgement and the states receive those death reports. What the CDC does is provide guidance to the states and physicians so that the data can be compiled as accurately as possible. There is nothing in the CDC advisory alert that suggests that physicians should put covid as cause of death in a gunshot incident. It seems unlikely to me that any doctor would do that. It also seems unlikely that someone dead from gunshot is even going to be tested for covid,

          The link states”COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death.” What doctor would assume covid as a cause if the person clearly died from a gun shot?

          1. “There is nothing in the CDC advisory alert that suggests that physicians should put covid as cause of death in a gunshot incident.”

            The advisory changes the numerical calculation changing the relationship of the Covid and flu numbers.

            Medicare payment policy incentivizes the use of Covid codes whether or not the person died of Covid.

            1. The advisory changes the numerical calculation changing the relationship of the Covid and flu numbers.

              You’re spouting nonsense. The methodology for estimating deaths where flu is a contributing cause is far more lax than for covid.
              Medicare payment policy incentivizes the use of Covid codes whether or not the person died of Covid.

              Even if you can show that to be true(which is doubtful) What does that have to do with the CDC?

    2. Jim22 there is no doubt that the changes in the registration of deaths leads to differences in numbers. I won’t guess at the numbers.

      One has to ask themselves how diagnosis are made. A human puts down the diagnosis. Medicare paid hospitals extra money if the patient died of Covid. It was financially better to have a patient die of Covid than of a co-morbid disease. Thus if a patient actually died of cardiac disease but tested positive for Covid (lots of false positives) he likely ended up with Covid as the cause instead of cardiac disease.

  7. So you’re all for the audit, right?

    It can’t damage or alter your position in any way, right?

    You’re not a fool, right?

    1. you asked for evidence of voter fraud.
      There is no evidence of fraud in your article. Its just a pack of made up false statements. There is zero factual evidence.

      Atrim County Mi uses hand marked ballots. The voters mark their paper ballots and then they are fed into the dominion machine which tabulates the votes. The hand-marked ballots are preserved have now been recounted by hand and no evidence of fraud has been found.

      1. Why does this anonymous fraud post links that are months old when new information exists changing things?

        He is dishonest and not credible.

  8. And that is why the CDC, the WHO, and Fauci have zero credibility. Zero. My dad was a microbiologist that specialized in viruses. This entire ‘pandemic’ has been a farce. I guarantee you other countries, that aren’t playing politics like the Biden/Obama football team, will move on and leave us in the dust. It is parody at this point, and that is why they are doubling down on equally false narratives about race and climate. The DNC needs to be exploded. 40 years ago. The democratic party died with JFK. People keep voting for the zombified corpse.

    1. It’s probably the flu…—Influenza/Article/01-20/It’s-Probably-the-Flu-Not%20Coronavirus/57157

      U.S. patients who present with respiratory symptoms probably have a cold or influenza, not novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), according to Nancy Messonnier, MD, the director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. Even though the first case of person-to-person was reported today, “CDC believes that the immediate risk to the American public continues to be low at this time” she said.

  9. Olly,

    Mankind need not be concerned with communism. Communism is self-destructive, lasting, in its most recent iteration, only 72 years. Mankind merely need worry about the enslavement and misery suffered by the general population while the egregious political malignancy persists for the sole purpose of providing personal power, for personal power’s sake, to dictators and narcissists.

    The Constitution of the United States of America is the perfect methodology for self-governance.

    The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx is the fraudulent dream sheet of despots and parasites.

    Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

    Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual or specific welfare, redistribution of wealth or charity. The same article provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the full taking of property under the principle of eminent domain.

    Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while it is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.

    The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional, including but not limited to, affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, SNAP, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.

    And lest you be fooled:

    “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

    – Vladimir Lenin

    1. Mankind need not be concerned with communism. Communism is self-destructive, lasting, in its most recent iteration, only 72 years.

      I’m not concerned about the lifecycle of communism. My concern is with what it devours during it’s lifecycle.

      1. Thank you.

        First paragraph, second sentence:

        “Mankind merely need worry about the enslavement and misery suffered by the general population while the egregious political malignancy persists for the sole purpose of providing personal power, for personal power’s sake, to dictators and narcissists.”

        – George

  10. How quickly people forget (perhaps never knew) about the Event 201 exercise and it’s conclusions.

    According to the report, “Governments will need to partner with traditional and social media companies to research and develop nimble approaches to countering misinformation.

    “National public health agencies should work in close collaboration with WHO to create the capability to rapidly develop and release consistent health messages.

    “For their part, media companies should commit to ensuring that authoritative messages are prioritized and that false messages are suppressed including though [sic] the use of technology.”

    Sound familiar?

    Throughout 2020, Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube have been censoring, suppressing, and flagging any coronavirus-related information that goes against WHO recommendations as a matter of policy, just as Event 201 had recommended.

    Big tech companies have also deployed the same content suppression tactics during the 2020 US presidential election — slapping “disputed” claims on content that question election integrity.

  11. I would like to thank the individual that recommended reading the following author’s article. If anyone is at uncertain where the Marxists are taking the Democratic party, just read this. It also explains why they can lie so easily.

    Valentinov was appalled that both Lenin and Plekhanov, the first Russian Marxist, insisted that there was no need to understand opposing views before denouncing them, since the very fact that they were opposing views proved them wrong—and what was wrong served the enemy and so was criminal. He quotes Lenin:

    Marxism is a monolithic conception of the world, it does not tolerate dilution and vulgarization by means of various insertions and additions. Plekhanov once said to me about a critic of Marxism . . . : “First, let’s stick the convict’s badge on him, and then after that we’ll examine his case.” And I think we must stick the “convict’s badge” on anyone and everyone who tries to undermine Marxism, even if we don’t go on to examine his case. That’s how every sound revolutionary should react. When you see a stinking heap on the road you don’t have to poke around in it to see what it is. Your nose tells you it’s sh!t, and you give it a wide berth.

    In much the same way, a true Leninist does not decide whether to lie. He automatically says what is most useful, with no reflection necessary. That is why he can show no visible signs of mendacity, perhaps even pass a lie detector test. La Rochefoucauld famously said that “hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue,” but a true Bolshevik is not even a hypocrite.

    “Lenin’s words took my breath away,” Valentinov recalls. I had the same reaction when I first heard a student explain that a view had to be wrong simply because it was voiced on Fox News.

    1. “. . . let’s stick the convict’s badge on him . . .”

      Which is why the Left twice impeached Trump, indicted Giuliani, and smears political opponents as “domestic terrorists.”

      “He automatically says what is most useful, with no reflection necessary.”

      Just saw yet another example of this ends-justifies-the-means in the media. Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI) reported that he chose to not get the vaccine. He already had Covid, consulted with his doctor, and tests proved that he has ample antibodies in his system.

      Brian Williams, the serial fabricator at MSNBC, then accused Johnson of being a “Russian asset.” Why? Because advising others to not take the vaccine (which is *not* what Johnson did) is just what a Russian asset would do.

      it was a stunning example of the “convict’s badge” and of “no reflection (being) necessary.”

  12. That was NOT a “miscalculation” it was a deliberate attempt to increase the control over the Populace! They knew exactly what they were doing, and now trying to save face. If it had been a miscalculation, and it took them over a year to realize it, there are some VERY ignorant people running that crap show!

  13. lol, While I’m being sensuous today. ( Jeff Foxworthy quote?)

    “Tony Fauci had authorized payment for the research. For five years — from 2014 to 2019 — the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which Fauci runs, and has for decades, pumped money to a group called the EcoHealth Alliance,” Carlson continued.

    “The EcoHealth Alliance, run by a man called Dr. Peter Daszak, contracted with Dr. Shi to conduct gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab,” Tucker further explained.

    “Millions of people have died of COVID-19, so it’s not a matter of score-settling or blame-assignment to figure out where it came from. If you want to prevent the next global pandemic, you have to figure out how this one started,” Carlson added, noting “This wouldn’t have happened if Tony Fauci didn’t allow it to happen. That is clear.”

    He concluded “In a functional country, there would be a criminal investigation into Tony Fauci’s role in the COVID pandemic that has killed millions and halted our country, changing it forever. So why isn’t there a criminal investigation into Tony Fauci’s role in this pandemic?”


    ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

    We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

    Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

  14. A consensus, no less. The testimony of experts has been the impetus for misguided judgments lately. Unfortunately, rulings made on plausible, rather than probable grounds, seems to be a progressive condition.

  15. Stanford Study Results: Facemasks are Ineffective to Block Transmission of COVID-19 and Actually Can Cause Health Deterioration and Premature Death
    By Joe Hoft
    Published April 19, 2021 at 10:00am
    Share (54k)
    Gab Share
    P Share

    A recent Stanford study released by the NCBI, which is under the National Institutes of Health, showed that masks do absolutely nothing to help prevent the spread of COVID-19 and their use is even harmful.

    NIH published a medical hypothesis by Dr. Baruch Vainshelboim (Cardiology Division, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System/Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States).

    NOQ Report uncovered the study:

    Did you hear about the peer-reviewed study done by Stanford University that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that face masks have absolutely zero chance of preventing the spread of Covid-19? No? It was posted on the the National Center for Biotechnological Information government website. The NCBI is a branch of the National Institute for Health, so one would think such a study would be widely reported by mainstream media and embraced by the “science-loving” folks in Big Tech.


    Instead, a DuckDuckGo search reveals it was picked up by ZERO mainstream media outlets and Big Tech tyrants will suspend people who post it, as political strategist Steve Cortes learned the hard way when he posted a Tweet that went against the face mask narrative. The Tweet itself featured a quote and a link that prompted Twitter to suspend his account, potentially indefinitely.

    The NCBI study begins with the following abstract:

    Many countries across the globe utilized medical and non-medical facemasks as non-pharmaceutical intervention for reducing the transmission and infectivity of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although, scientific evidence supporting facemasks’ efficacy is lacking, adverse physiological, psychological and health effects are established. Is has been hypothesized that facemasks have compromised safety and efficacy profile and should be avoided from use. The current article comprehensively summarizes scientific evidences with respect to wearing facemasks in the COVID-19 era, providing prosper information for public health and decisions making.

    The study concludes (emphasis added):

    The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

    Here is the table for physiological and psychological effects of wearing a facemask:

    Here is the full study:

    Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis by Baruch Vainshelboim by Jim Hoft on Scribd

    What an absolute joke. America has been led down an insane path of wearing masks that according to this study don’t prevent the transmission of COVID-19 and cause more health risk than ever imagined.

    Copyright and license information of the research:

    Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company’s public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre – including this research content – immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

    1. SECOND STUDY This Time From CDC WEBSITE Confirms Stanford Study on Face Masks Being Harmful – Cause Serious Side Effects
      By Joe Hoft
      Published April 20, 2021 at 2:27pm
      Share (4k)
      Gab Share
      P Share

      More support for health concerns with wearing masks has been uncovered. This report was published and presented at the CDC website in June 2020.

      It was brought to our attention today, that a report was published at the Hayride in March that is similar to our report from yesterday noted below:

      In March, the Hayride reported on the results of another mask study posted on June 10, 2020, at the CDC website. This study confirms our reporting from yesterday that masks aren’t just a nuisance but can cause serious health problems. The article recently uncovered was published by the CDC and it states in black and white the side-effects of wearing a mask, specifically related to the masks trapping carbon dioxide or CO2. The article states the masks cause breathing resistance that could result in a reduction in the frequency and depth of breathing, known as hypoventilation, in as little as an hour of wearing a mask. The article further went on to elaborate on the side-effects of increased CO2 concentrations in the mask wearer that include:


      Increased pressure inside the skull;
      Nervous system changes (e.g., increased pain threshold, reduction in cognition – altered judgement, decreased situational awareness, difficulty coordinating sensory or cognitive, abilities and motor activity, decreased visual acuity, widespread activation of the sympathetic nervous system that can oppose the direct effects of CO2 on the heart and blood vessels);
      Increased breathing frequency;
      Increased “work of breathing”, which is result of breathing through a filter medium;
      Cardiovascular effects (e.g., diminished cardiac contractility, vasodilation of peripheral blood vessels);
      Reduced tolerance to lighter workloads.

      The Hayride reports:

      The Hayride has covered this in the past specifically regarding the cognitive loss caused by COVID masks trapping CO2 where according to a Harvard Study breathing in as little as 945 PPM of CO2 lowers cognitive ability 15% and at 1400 PPM of CO2 cognitive ability reduces by 50%… What is also disturbing is not only the brain damage that is caused by the masks, but the adverse cardiovascular effects on the heart and lungs along with the reduction of blood sugar and dehydration.

      We also discovered that the Stanford report from our article yesterday was censored by Twitter last week when former Trump campaign staffer, Steve Cortes, tweeted out the results of this study.
      Why are US medical experts not telling Americans of the dangers of wearing masks? Why is Big Tech censoring this message?

      1. Hi Oky:

        I can absolutely attest to difficulty breathing in tightly woven masks. I nearly fainted while loading 6 50-lb bags of horse feed onto the back of my truck. As soon as I pulled my mask off, I was fine. My hands were full, and I hadn’t removed the mask after walking away from the people distributing the feed order.

        I’ve tried to explain this to a few people, but received a surprising amount of pushback.

        This is why I wear a mask with an exhalation valve, even though those are not allowed in some areas. I just can’t breathe well enough in some types of masks.

        I would also add that there is an appalling lack of hygiene on display with masks. I’ve seen people wear the same mask for 2 weeks, tossing it in their car between uses. I picked up a pizza order from a place a few weeks ago. The man running the cash register looked like he hadn’t washed his mask…ever. Not since Covid began. It was stained, had spatters of pizza sauce on it, and looked wretched.

        A mask can help contain heavy droplets, but it does no one any good at all if it isn’t regularly cleaned or changed out, or if it’s contaminated. Wearing the same mask you’ve coughed or sneezed in for 10 days is like tying a used, dirty handkerchief around your face and going out in public.

        1. Hi:

          I understand, I’ve had seasonal & other breathing issues for years. I was ether having to stay out of places or have to go in throw down the legal, hippa law & just them tell to back off. But I’m Okla not Cali. There are those holding their ground. Shasta county Ca I think, one gay stood up & the rest of the community stood up & back him. He had no choice, that Gov/state had him just about run out of biz.

          Never let them bulldog you or they’ll never quit with their insanity.

        2. Karen, I agree.

          There is a black mask I saw that covers the face made with inexpensive stones and costs about $10. It’s quite a fashion statement that lets you breathe freely. I have seen quite a few women wearing it, but it doesn’t do much of anything.

  16. Transparency would have had the CDC publishing the study/ies they based their recommendations on, and the error would have been discovered is less than 10 minutes.

  17. The real question is why this information is being allowed to escape from the lab now. Everything is narrative. The numbers were always fake and they all knew they were fake. We weren’t and still aren’t allowed to talk about effective therapeutics because they would have made the worldwide economic collapse and accompanying globalist takeover unnecessary, not to mention saving a lot of lives. For whose benefit is the record being corrected now? You can bet it’s not for John Q. Public. Reminds me of a line from the Bourne trilogy: “They don’t make mistakes. They don’t do random.”

    1. “They don’t make mistakes. They don’t do random.”

      – Persephone

      I love it!

      The Deep Deep State told America that Lee Harvey Oswald killed John Fitzgerald Kennedy. That truth got out – JFK was killed by Alan Dulles, the CIA, the FBI, the JCS, the ONI, Texas oilmen, the Mob, Cuban exiles, etc., – as did the truths about “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s treasonous, malevolent despotism, FDR’s Pearl Harbor and schemes in communism, MLK, RFK, the Gulf of Tonkin scam, Flight 800, Mossad bringing down the WTC through controlled demolition, WMD in Iraq, and other political adventures designed to delude, oh, I almost forgot, and the 2020 election theft.

      “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

      – William Casey, CIA Director

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: